Adv. D. Jayesh vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

Devan Ramachandran, J

The District Collector, Alappuzha, issued a notification on 18.12.2024 – a copy of which is on record as Ext.P2 – calling for Advocates for being appointed to the post of “District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor”. 2. The appellant in W.A No.646 of 2026 (who will hereinafter be referred to as “Appellant” for ease), is stated to be an Advocate and says that he did not apply for the post because the notification showed the name of the same as “District Government Pleader”. He explains that he has considerable practice and experience in Criminal Law, thus deserving to be a Public Prosecutor; but that since the notification did not notify the said post to be filled up, he did not apply. He alleges that the post of Public Prosecutor was also filled up from the applicants who responded to the afore notification; and hence that he was constrained to approach the learned Single Judge through the writ petition.

Sri.L.Ram Mohan – the learned counsel for the “appellant” argued that, when the notification is unmistakable that it called for Advocates only to the post of “District Government Pleader”, the official respondents could not have filled up the post of “Public Prosecutor” from it; and hence that the appointment of the 4^th respondent in W.A No.646 of 2026 is liable to be set aside. He showed us that the learned Single Judge found favour with his client’s contentions, to hold the selection process to be vitiated; but still allowed the party respondent to continue until such time as a fresh process is initiated. He concluded that, his client is only aggrieved by the latter part of the directions, namely that the selected person be allowed to continue until the new selection is conducted and completed; and prayed that the judgment, to such extent, be set aside.

The judgment in question has been impugned by the State of Kerala also through W.A No.909 of 2026; while the 4^th respondent in the writ petition – who has been appointed (who will hereinafter be referred to as the “Appointed Person”) has filed W.A No.740 of 2026.

Since the issues involved are common, we have heard the afore appeals together.

Sri.Asaf Ali, learned Director General of Prosecution, assisted by Sri.P.M.Rafiq – learned Special Government Pleader, argued that the directions in the impugned judgment are untenable and without reason because, the notification of the District Collector specifically mentions that it has been issued for the purpose of filling up the post of “District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor”. He insisted that the writ petitioner could not have feigned any confusion in the matter, especially because he is an Advocate and when the Kerala Government Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 (“Rules” for short) specify the post to be “District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor”. He contended that when the writ petitioner did not even apply for the post, the learned Single Judge ought not to have set aside the process of selection, or the appointment of the “appointed person”.

Sri.T.B.Hood- learned counsel appearing for the “Appointed Person”/appellant in W.A No.740 of 2026, adopted the afore submissions of Sri.Asaf Ali; then adding to it, saying that the purported confusion on the notification is only a ruse adopted by the writ petitioner to make up for his omission or failure to have applied; and consequently that the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition in the manner it has been done. He insisted that, not only is his client fully deserving of having been selected; but is also entitled to continue in the post without any interdiction. He prayed that his client’s appeal be allowed and that of the writ petitioner be dismissed.

It is ineluctable from the afore narrative of facts and submissions of the parties, that the “Appellant” maintains that he was drawn to the impression, on a reading of the notification of the District Collector, that the post to be filled up was only that of “District Government Pleader” and not that of “Public Prosecutor”.

At first blush, this argument may seem lustrous because, the notification, in the first paragraph thereof, refers to a vacancy caused on account of the retirement of a Government Pleader and then mentions about the Government Order directing the District Collector to create a panel of Advocates for the purpose of filling up the same. It is this, that the “appellant” relies upon, to assert that he was under the impression that only the post of “District Government Pleader” was to be filled up and not that of “Public Prosecutor”.

However, when one reads the “Rules”, the thrust of the arguments of the “Appellant” looses momentum because, in Rule 7 thereof, it is specifically mandated that there shall be one District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, at each District Court Centre; and further there may be also such number of additional Government Pleaders and additional Public Prosecutors, as may be considered necessary by the Government, in each district.

Of course, it is not always necessary that a single person be appointed as the District Government Pleader and the Public Prosecutor, and the said two posts can always be considered separate and filled up in such manner. This is discernible from Rule 9 of the Rules, which, while providing for the terms of appointment of the officers, stipulates that such terms shall be for a period of three years, irrespective of if one person is appointed as the District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor or if such posts are filled up separately.

As far as Kerala is concerned, it is beyond contest that one person is always appointed as a District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, and that the two posts are neither treated nor filled separately. As a practising Advocate, one cannot countenance that the appellant was not aware of this; but he still underpins his case trying to take refuge in an apparent confusion by the manner in which he reads paragraph 1 of the notification, when the subject of the same chose the post to be District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor.

But, when one reads the notification in its entirity, it starts with the subject: “invitation of applications to the post of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor Alappuzha” (sic). When the notification begins as afore, one fails to comprehend how the “appellant who is a practicing Advocate” can allege that he was confused about the post to be filled up, merely because the first paragraph thereof mentions about the vacancy caused on account of the retirement of the incumbent District Government Pleader.

Indubitably, the contentions of the “Appellant” can only be construed to be a strategy employed by him to either cover up his omission or failure in applying; or an attempt to intermeddle; neither of which can be countenanced nor permitted, to prejudice either the selection process, or the person selected thereunder.

In such circumstances, we can hold no favour with the views of the learned Single Judge; and consequently;